Register of Debates in Congress, 第 4 卷﹔第 10 卷﹔第 61 卷

Any directors of the bank, therefore, who might be appointed by the Government, would be required to rePort to the Executive as fully as the late directors have olone, and more frequently, because the danger is more imminent; and it would be my duty to require of them a full detail of every part of the proceedings of the corporation, or any of its officers, in order that I might be enabled to decide whether I should exercise the power of 9rdering a scire facias, which is reserved to the President by the charter, or adopt such other lawful measures as the interests of the country might require. It is too obvious to be doubted, that the misconduct of the corporation would never have been brought to light by the aid of a Public proceeding at the board of directors. The board, when called on by the Government directors, refused to institute an inquiry or require an account, and the mode adopted by the latter was the only one by which the object could be attained. It would be absurd to admit the right of the Government directors to give information, and at the same time deny the means of obtaining it. It would be but another mode of enabling the bank to conceal its proceedings, and practise with impunity its corruptions. In the mode of obtaining the information, therefore, and in their efforts to put an end to the abuses disclosed, as well as in reporting them, the conduct of the late directors was judicious and praiseworthy, and the honesty, firmness, and intelligence, which they have displayed, entitle them, in my opinion, to the gratitude of the country. But if I do not mistake the principles on which the Senate have recently rejected them, the conduct which I deem worthy of praise they treat as a breach of duty; and, in their judgment, the measures which they took to obtain the information, and their efforts to put an end to the practices disclosed, and the reports they have made to the Executive, although true in all their parts, are regarded as an offence, and supposed to require some decisive mark of strong disapprobation. If the views of the Senate be such as I have supposed, the difficulty of sending to the Senate any other names than those of the late directors will be at once apparent. I cannot consent to place before the Senate the name of any one who is not prepared, with firmness and honesty, to discharge the duties of a public director in the manner they were fulfilled by those whom the Senate have refused to confirm. If, for performing a duty lawfully required of them by the Executive, they are to be punished by the subsequent rejection of the Senate, it would not only be useless but cruel to place men of character and honor in that situation, if even such men could be found to accept it. If they failed to give the required information, or to take proper measures to obtain it, they would be removed by the Executive. If they gave the information, and took proper measures to obtain it, they would, upon the next nomination, be rejected by the Senate. It would be unjust in me to place any other citizens in the predicament in which this unlooked-for decision of the Senate has placed the estimable and honorable men who were directors during the last year. If I am not in error in relation to the principles upon which these gentlemen have been rejected, the necessary consequence will be that the bank will hereafter be without Government directors, and the people of the United states must be deprived of their chief means of protection against its abuses; for, whatever conflicting opinions may exist as to the right of the directors appointed in January, 1833, to hold over until new appointments shall be made, it is very obvious that, whilst their rejection by the Senate remains in force, they cannot, with propriety, attempt to exercise such a power. In the present state of things, therefore, the corporation will be enabled ef f: ctually to accomplish the object it has been so long endeavoring to attain. Its exchange committees, and its

delegated powers to its president, may hereafter be dispensed with, without incurring the danger of exposing its proceeding to the public view. The sentinels which the law had placed at its board can no longer appear there. Justice to myself, and to the faithful officers by whom the public has been so well and so honorably served without compensation or reward, during the last year, has required of me this full and frank exposition of my motives for nominating them again after their rejection by the Senate. I repeat, that I do not question the right of the Senate to confirm or reject at their pleasure; and if there had been any reason to suppose that the rejection, in this case, had not been produced by the causes to which I have attributed it, or if my views of their duties, and the present importance of their rigid performance, were other than they are, I should have cheerfully acquiesced, and attempted to find others who would accept the unenviable trust. But I cannot consent to appoint directors of the bank to be the subservient instruments, or silent spectators, of its abuses and corruptions, nor can I ask honorable men to undertake the thankless duty, with the certain prospect of being rebuked by the Senate for its faithful performance in pursuance of the lawful directions of the Executive. I repeat, that I do not claim a right to inquire into, or officially to censure, the acts of the Senate. But the situation in which the important interests of the American people vested in the Bank of the United States, and af. fected by its arrangement, must necessarily be left by the rejection of the gentlemen now renominated, has made it my duty to give this explanation to the Senate, and submit the matter to their reconsideration. If it shall be determined by the Senate that all channels of information in relation to the corrupt proceedings of this dangerous corporation shall be cut off, and the Government and country left exposed to its unrestrained machinations against the purity of the press and public liberty, I shall, after having made this effort to avert so great an evil, rest for the justification of my official course, with respectful confidence, on the judgment of the American people. In conclusion, it is proper I should inform the Senate that there is now no Government director appointed for the present year, Mr. Bayard, who was nominated and consirmed by the Senate, having refused to accept that appointment. ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTon, April 14, 1833.

GENTI.EMEN: Your letter of the 8th instant has been received. In reply I have to remark that the information now requested is for my own satisfaction, and I do not wish it extended beyond the personal knowledge of the Government directors. In case of a gross violation of the charter, it is my duty to issue a scire facias against the bank. If the rumors I have heard be true, it will probably be incumbent on me to do so, and those rumors relate to proceedings which must have come within the personal knowledge or observation of some of you. If they shall be confirmed by your report, I shall not only be able to judge of my particular duty, but may, if thought proper, cause to be made through the Secretary of the Treasury that more formal and thorough investigation which you suggest.

In conclusion, I would remark that the discounts granted to individuals are not deemed to constitute those private accounts which, by the charter, are so carefully guarded; but that provision only embraces the debtor and creditor accounts of individuals on the books of the bank. If any discounts be corruptly or improperly granted, it is not only deemed right, but, in aggravated cases, the duty of the Government directors to communicate the fact to the Government. I am, gentlemen, yours, &c.

ANDREW JACKSON. To Messrs. SULLIVAN, GILPrN, and WAGER, United States Bank Directors.

Rip RAPs, August 3, 1833.

GENTLEMEN: I am informed that there is a book of expenses kept at the bank which comes before the divi. dend committee semi-annually. If any of you have had, or can have, access to that book, I should be glad to learn what were the expenses of the last year, and also the preceding year, and for what particulars incurred. All directors have a right to see and inspect this book; and if it is refused to the Government directors, report the same to me.

Mr. Walsh admitted, in his paper, that his publisher had received about $1,000 for printing newspapers calculated to operate on the elections. . This leads me to believe that a considerable sum of the expenses of the bank has been incurred in this way. As it is my duty to see that the funds of the Government, intrusted to this institution, are not misapplied, and as it is your duty, as the representatives of the Government in the board of directors, to furnish the Executive branch of the Govern. ment with such information as will enable it to act understandingly in protecting and guarding its interests, I desire that you will obtain and furnish me a statement of the bank account ef expenses. They can in no sense be considered private accounts. They are the accounts of a public institution's expenditures, upon the honest and proper appropriation of which must depend, to some extent, the confidence which the administrators of Government may feel at liberty to repose in it. I should consider it proper, and even your duty, if an examination of these accounts should be denied by the officer keeping them, to demand a view of them by a motion at the board of directors. If it be refused, then report the same forthwith to me; and, at the same time, give me all the infor. mation and knowledge in regard to these accounts which you may have acquired in the discharge of your duty as directors. I am, gentlemen, with great respect,

A motion was made by Mr. Preston that the same be printed, in confidence, for the use of the Senate: where. upon,

On motion by Mr. Poindexter,

The Senate adjourned.

SATURDAY, March 22, 1834.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the message of the 11th instant, renominating Henry D. Gilpin, and others, as bank directors.

Mr. Preston withdrew his motion made the 11th instant for the printing thereof.

On motion by Mr. Webster,

Ordered, That the message be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Thunsnar, May 1, 1834.

Mr. Tyler, from the Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the message of the President of the United States of the 11th of March, renominating Henry D. Gilpin, Peter Wager, John T. Sullivan, and Hugh McElderry, as directors of the Bank of the United States, submitted the following report:

The committee have bestowed upon the subject the reflection which respect for the Chief Magistrate would at all times command. The President, at an early day of the session, submitted his nomination to the Senate of five persons as directors of the Bank of the United States. To one of these nominations the Senate assented, and the person nominated was appointed. In regard to the four

others, being the same persons now renominated to the Senate, no definitive decision was made until the 27th day of February, when they were each separately rejected by ayes and noes. The subjects, in the mean time, with which these nominations were in some degree connected, had undergone a full and elaborate discussion in the Senate. The decision, therefore, was well calculated to satisfy the President that the Senate entertained decisive objections to the confirmation of these four persons; and the Journal, of which the President usually sees a copy, could not fail to show that each and every one of them was rejected by a clear majority of the whole Senate, The precise character of the objections taken by each and every member of this majority, or even the general character of such objections, it would be presumptuous in the committee to attempt to ascertain. They cannot be expected to go into private conference with members, and to interrogate either those of the majority or minority, upon this or any other question, as to the reasons of their votes. It must be obvious that, from the constitution of the Senate, from the manner of its proceedings, from the absolute right of every member to vote for or sgainst particular nominations, for reasons of his own, whether others concur with him in those reasons or not, the grounds of the votes of individual members can never be set forth, nor authentically known. The committee cannot undertake any inquiry into such grounds of individual opinion, nor do they know any form in which the Senate itself, if it were so inclined, could compel individuals to state the reasons of their votes. The committee, therefore, do not suppose it proper for the Senate, by any proceeding to be adopted on its part, to undertake to set forth the reasons of members for rejecting these persons. It is enough that the Senate, in the exercise of an unquestionable constitutional right, has refused its advice and consent to the nominations. This has been officially certified to the President, and the committee think there is no ground for further inquiry. The President disclaims, indeed, in terms, all right to inquire into the reasons of the Senate for rejecting any nomination; and yet the message immediately undertakes to infer, from facts and circumstances, what those reasons, which influenced the Senate in this case, must have been, and goes on to argue, much at large, against the validity of such supposed reasons. The committee are of opinion that if, as the President admits, he cannot inquire into the reasons of the Senate for refusing its assent to nominations, it is still more clear that these reasons cannot, with propriety, be assumed, and made subjects of comment. In cases in which nominations are rejected for reasons affecting the character of the persons nominated, the committee think that no inference is to be drawn except what the vote shows; that is to say: that the Senate with. holds its advice and consent from the nominations. And the Senate, not being bound to give reasons for its votes in these cases, it is not bound, nor would it be proper for it, as the committee think, to give any answer to remarks founded on the presumption of what such reasons must have been in the present case. They feel themselves, therefore, compelled to forego any response whatever to the message of the President in this particular, as well by the reasons before assigned, as out of respect to that high officer. The President acts upon his own views of public policy in making nominations to the Senate; and the Senate does no more when it confirms or rejects such nominations. For either of these co-ordinate departments to enter into the consideration of the motives of the other would not, and could not fail, in the end, to break up all harmonious intercourse between them. This your committee would deplore as highly injurious to the best interests of the country. The President, doubtless, asks himself, in the case of every nomination for office, whether the per

Executive Proceedings of the Senate.

[23d Cong, 1st Sess.

son be fit for the office; whether he be actuated by correct yiews and motives; and whether he be likely to be in- fluenced by those considerations which should alone govern him in the discharge of his duties—is he honest, capable, and faithful? Being satisfied in these particulars, the President submits his name to the Senate, where the same inquiries arise, and its decision should be presumed to be dictated by the same high considerations as those which govern the President in originating the nomination. For these reasons, the committee have altogether re- frained from entering into any discussion of the legal duties and obligations of directors of the bank, appointed by the President and Senate, which form the main topic of the message. The committee would not feel that it had fully acquited itself of its obligations, if it did not avail itself of this occasion to call the attention of the Senate to the general subject of renomination. The committee do not deny that a right of renomination exists; but they are of opinion that, in very clear and strong cases only should the Senate reverse decisions which it has deliberately formed, and officially communi- cated to the President. In military and naval appoint- ments it is possible that questions, not of personal fitness for office, but of the right of individuals to rank and grade, may arise between the President and Senate, and that nominations may be rejected pending such questions which might properly be renewed under other laws, or a new state of circumstances. And in regard too to diplo- matic appointments, the question may perhaps sometimes turn, not on the fitness of the person nominated, but on the propriety of any appointment, or of any such mission as is proposed. If new information should be given, shedding new light satisfactory to the Senate, in such case it may be a proper reason for agreeing to nominations once rejected. Nor will the committee say that there may not be other cases in which a person once rejected may be properly again presented to the Senate. But the

committee think that in a case in which the decision of

the Senate has been deliberately made upon the sole question of the fitness of the persons for the offices to which they are nominated, and its assent has been withheld, it ought not, without very strong and clear reasons, to change that decision upon a renomination. The com. Inittee has caused the Journals of the Senate to be examined, in reference to the practice of renomination; and they find that, during the Presidential terms of General Washington, Mr. J. Adams, and Mr. Jefferson, no instance of renomination to office once occurred; and yet there are not wanting instances of the rejection of nominations made by those illustrious citizens, the motives for which it would be d ficult now to ascertain. To illustrate this it is only necessary to select the case of Colonel Fishburn, a gallant soldier of the Revolution, who was nominated by General Washington as the collector of Savannah, and was rejected by the Senate. And although the President was obviously mortified by the decision, the nomination having been made, in a great measure, upon his personal knowledge of the individual, he contented himself, after the rejection, with addressing a letter to the Senate, containing his reasons for the nomination of Colonel Fishburn, and accompanied that message with the name of another individual. During the administration of Mr. Madison, two instances occur of renominations of the same persons to the same offices for which they had originally been nominated. Abraham Quackenbush was nominated as an ensign, and rejected; renominated and confirmed. And George Brown was nominated a collector of the first collection district of Maryland, and, after a rejection, was renominated and confirmed. What reasons influenced the President to pursue this course in the two instances referred to, or the Senate to concur in it, the committee have now no means of ascertaining. During the adminis

tration of Mr. Monroe the instances of renomination became more frequent; but several of them were nominations to military appointments; and, in a majority of the cases, no direct vote rejecting the nomination had passed the Senate. The cases of renomination by Mr. Monroe after a rejection, were James Gadsden as adjutant general, and Nathan Towson as colonel, Charles Van de Venter as navy agent, and Duff Green as receiver, all of which were rejected on their renomination. The two first nominations were purely military, and involved an interesting and difficult question of grade; and, in the opinion of the President, called for the most minute and elaborate investigation. What motives impelled to the renomination of the two last, the committee cannot undertake to say. During the four years of Mr. J. Q. Adams's administration, no instance of renomination appears to have occurred, unless the nomination of Amos Binney, whose nomination, previously made by Mr. Monroe, had been postponed; and that of Peter Sailly, whose nomination by Mr. Monroe had been laid upon the table at the last day of the session, and who, at the commencement of the succeeding Execu. tive session, was again presented to the Senate, are to be considered as renominations. Since the 3d of March, 1829, four instances of renomination, after rejection by the Senate, have occurred. In two of these instances, the persons renominated were again rejected, in the third the nomination was agreed to, and the fourth is the case now before the Senate. The committee perceive, with regret, an intimation in the message that the President may not see fit to send to the Senate the names of any other persons to be directors of the bank, except those whose nominations have been already rejected. While the Senate will exercise its own rights according to its own views of its duty, it will leave to other officers of the Government to decide for themselves on the manner they will perform their duties. The committee know no reason why these offices should not be filled; or why, in this case, no further nomination should be made after the Senate has exercised its unquestionable right of rejecting particular persons who have been nominated, any more than in other cases. The | Senate will be ready at all times to receive and consider any such nominations as the President may present to it. It claims no authority to control him in his nominations; but it cannot surrender the exercise of its own right of deciding for itself on the propriety of advising and consenting to appointments to office. It cannot deprive itself of its own powers; it cannot surrender its own constitu. tional character; it cannot, through apprehension of any consequences whatever, forbear from exercising its high duty of giving, or of refusing, its advice and consent to nominations of the President, in all cases, according to its conscientious sense of its own obligations to the constitu. tion and to the country. If these offices of bank directors remain unfilled, the fault will not be the fault of the Senate. The case is like other cases of rejection. In other cases, other persons have been nominated in place of those rejected by the Senate, and confirmed; and if a different course shall be adopted on this occasion, it is a course for which the Senate cannot be responsible. Their power of withholding their assent from the President's nominations is not altogether vain and nugatory. It was given them by the constitution to be exercised in proper cases, and in their own discretion. When exer. cised by them, the rights of no other branch of the Gov|ernment are infringed or impaired. The Senate has only done its own duty, and, having done this honestly and conscientiously, it cannot fear any consequences. | The committee recommend that th: Senate do not advise and consent to the appointment of the persons thus renominated. The report was read. The Senate proceeded to consider the message renominating Henry D, Gilpin, and others, as bank directors,

On the question, “Will the Senate advise and consent to the appointment of Henry D. Gilpin, Peter Wager, John T. Sullivan, and Hugh McElderry?” {t was determined in the negative, yeas 11, nays 30. On motion by Mr. Clay, The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative, are, Messrs. Brown, Forsyth, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, King of Alabama, Linn, Robinson, Shepley, White, Wright. Those who voted in the negative, are, Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, Kent, King of Georgia, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Sprague, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Tyler, Waggauman, Webster. So it was Resolved, That the Senate do not advise and consent to the appointment of Henry D. Gilpin, Peter Wager, John T. Sullivan, of Philadelphia, and Hugh McElderry, of Baltimore, as directors of the Bank of the United States. Mr. Forsyth submitted the following resolution: Resolved, That the injunction of secrecy be removed from all the proceedings of the Senate in relation to the nomination and renomination of the directors of the Bank of the United States. On motion, by Mr. Wright, to amend the same, by long after the word “Senate,” the words, and the debates.

On motion by Mr. Webster, Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to give extracts from the Executive Journal of the proceedings of the Senate in relation to the nomination and renomination of the directors of the Bank of the United States for the year 1834. On motion by Mr. Preston, Resolved, That two thousand copies of the President's message of March 11, 1834, nominating certain bank directors, and the report of the committee thereon, together with the proceedings of the Senate on the first and second nomination of said bank directors, be printed.

ACTS OF A PUBLIC NATUIRE

PASSED AT THE FIRST SESSION OF THE TWENTY-THIRD CONGRESS.

AN ACT making appropriations for the naval service for the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four.

SEc. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be appropriated for the naval service for the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four, in addition to the unexpended balances of former appropriations for similar objects, viz. For pay and subsistence of the officers of the navy, and pay of seamen, one million four hundred and eighty-seven | thousand two hundred and forty-four dollars and twentyone cents. For pay of superintendents, naval constructors, and all the civil establishments at the several yards, sixty-one thousand one hundred and eighty dollars. For provisions, four hundred and fifty thousand dollars. For the repairs of vessels in ordinary, and the repairs and wear and tear of vessels in commission, five hundred and ninety thousand dollars. For medicines and surgical instruments, hospital stores, and other expenses on account of the sick, forty thousand dollars. For the improvement and necessary repairs of the navy yard at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, forty thousand seven hundred dollars. For the improvement and necessary repairs of the navy yard at Charlestown, Massachusetts, eighty-six thousand three hundred dollars. For the improvement and necessary repairs of the navy yard at Brooklyn, New York, fifty-seven thousand five hundred dollars. For the improvement and necessary repairs of the navy yard at Philadelphia, six thousand five hundred and fifty dollars. For the improvement and necessary repairs of the navy yard at Washington, twenty-nine thousand five hundred dollars. For the improvement and necessary repairs of the navy yard at Gosport, Virginia, one hundred and eight thousand two hundred and fifty dollars. For the improvement and necessary repairs of the navy yard at Pensacola, twenty-six thousand dollars. For ordnance and ordnance stores, ten thousand dollars. For defraying the expenses that may accrue for the following purposes, viz.: For freight and transportation of materials and stores of every description; for wharfage and dockage, storage and rent, travelling expenses of officers and transportation of seamen, house rent, chamber money, and fuel and candles, to officers other than those attached to navy yards and stations, and for officers in sick quarters where there is no hospital, and for funeral expenses; for commissions, clerk hire and office rent, stationary and fuel, to navy agents; for premiums and incidental expenses of recruiting, for apprehending deserters; for compensation to judge advocates; for per diem allowances to persons attending courts martial and courts of inquiry, and to officers engaged in extra service beyond the limits of their stations; for printing and stationary of every description, and for books, maps, charts and mathematical and nautical instruments, chronometers, models and drawings; for purchase and repair of fire and steam engines, and for machinery; for purchase and maintenance of oxen and horses,

and for carts, timber wheels, and workmen's tools of every description; for postage of letters on public service, for pilotage and towing ships of war; for cabin furniture of vessels in commission, and for furniture of officers' houses at navy yards; for taxes on navy yards and public property; for assistance rendered to vessels in distress; for incidental labor at navy yards, not applicable to any other appropriation; for coal and other fuel for forges, foundries, and steam engines; for candles, oil, and fuel for vessels in commission and in ordinary; for repairs of magazines and powder houses; for preparing moulds for ships to be built, and for no other purpose whatsoever, two hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars. For contingent expenses for objects not hereinbefore enumerated, four thousand dollars. For pay of the officers, non-commissioned officers, musicians and privates, and for subsistence of the officers of the marine corps, including arrearages and increased pay under the act, second of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, one hundred and thirty-five thousand eight hundred and eighty dollars and twentyfive cents. For subsistence of non-commissioned officers, musicians and privates, and washerwomen of said corps serving on shore, nineteen thousand two hundrcd and thirty-one dollars and eighty cents. For clothing, twenty-nine thousand three hundred and fifteen dollars. For fuel, nine thousand and ninety-cight dollars. For contingent expenses, including arrearages, ninetecn thousand dollars. For transportation and recruiting, five thousand dollars. For medicines, hospital stores, and surgical instruments for officers and men serving on shore, two thousand three hundred and sixty-nine dollars and seventy-one cents. For balance due Lieutenant Colonel Anderson, nine hundred and fifty-four dollars and twenty-two cents. For the erection of barracks for the marines stationed at the navy yard, Brooklyn, New York, thirty thousand dollars. For carrying into esrect the acts for the suppression of the slave trade, including the support in the United States, and for a term not exceeding six months after their ar. rival in Africa, of all persons removed from the United States under the said acts, five thousand dollars. That so much of the sums appropriated by the act of the twenty-eighth May, eighteen hundred and thirty, for the relief of Alexander Claxton, as still remains due and unpaid, and which has been carried to the credit of the surplus fund, shall be and the same is hereby reappropriated. Approved, January 24, 1834.

AN ACT making appropriations, in part, for the support of Government for the year one thousand eight hun- dred and thirty-sour. Be it enacted, &c., That the following sums be, and the same are hereby, appropriated, to be paid out of any unappropriated money in the Trcasury, viz: For pay and mileage of the members of Congress, and delegates, five hundred and fifty-five thousand four hun- dred and eighty dollars. - For pay of the officers and clerks of the Senate and